Bibliographic record
Abstract
Despite the efforts made by the Ministry of Education in Saudi Arabia, there is still much to be done in order to nourish creativity in schools. According to a number of studies, there is an urgent need to reconsider the role of creativity in the current educational programmes because there is an increasing gap between the reality of the classrooms and the expectations that students and others, such as parents, might have. Studies have shown that Saudi public school students lack the necessary creative thinking skills, especially in language classrooms. In fact, as claimed by some researchers, Saudi students’ low level of achievement in English is mainly a result of the approaches and methods practiced in schools that do not promote creativity. The current study explores whether or not EFL teachers promote creativity in their classrooms in Saudi Arabia, while also taking into consideration their own perceptions and attitudes towards this important concept. The sample in this study included 45 Saudi EFL teachers and six EFL supervisors. After teachers responded to a creativity questionnaire that explored their attitudes and the extent to which they promote creativity in language classrooms, eight of the teachers and the six EFL supervisors were interviewed. The results revealed that most Saudi EFL teachers put little effort into fostering creativity in their teaching practices. Also, their attitudes towards creativity seem to be divided. The study identified a number of factors as being responsible for these results. They highlight the need to familiarize textbook designers, EFL supervisors, and teachers with the importance of creativity and its various applications. The study concludes with important practical recommendations and suggestions for future research.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.000 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.002 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.003 | 0.001 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".